Wolf v. State

Citations

• 4 Tex. Ct. App. 332

Syllabus

<p>1. Variance. — A stolen animal was described in the indictment as a “red beef steer,” whereas the witness described the animal of which he spoke as a “red, roan beef steer.” Held, not a material variance.</p> <p>2. Ownership—Evidence. —To establish the ownership of a branded animal alleged to have been stolen, it is not necessary that the State shall prove the brand and the record of it. Evidence of the ownership, independent of the brand, is competent.</p> <p>3. Continuance. — Indicted for theft of a steer, the accused applied for a continuance to obtain the evidence of a witness by whom he expected to prove a purchase of the steer from the witness by accused: but the showing alleged neither the residence of the witness nor the place of the purchase. Held, that the continuance was correctly refused.</p>